Were Obama's daughters and mother-in-law paid staff while in the White House?

There's no linked article for this rumor. The claim just appears under articles about Obama and lately under articles about Ivanka Trump. Has there ever been an article anywhere where this was proved false?

Shouldn't you rather begin with trying to find anywhere it was "proved" true - or at least some evidence thereof? (Or, failing that, at the very least any of the various places you say it appears.) Otherwise, I think you'll waste quite a lot of everyone's time trying to "prove" any outlandish claim false.

ETA - Anyway, snopes has this:http://www.snopes.com/marian-robinson-pension/
ETA2 - About the daughters... How are we supposed to even take this claim seriously?? The fact that these rumours persist just shows how idiotic and racist the whole attack on his family was compared to, well, every other president, certainly not least of which the current resident of that house.

Since the POTUS is required to save every e-mail (and tweet?) he/she writes in his/her official function for eternity, I would assume that the list of employees of the White House is a public document - maybe apart from security employees?

ETA2 - About the daughters... How are we supposed to even take this claim seriously?? The fact that these rumours persist just shows how idiotic and racist the whole attack on his family was compared to, well, every other president, certainly not least of which the current resident of that house.

While I don't disagree with you at all about the idiotic and racist attacks on President Obama and his family I think this specific rumour has more to do with defending the current President as in "yeah well why is everyone mad as Trump for doing exactly what Obama did huh huh". It's become more than obvious that little things like fact and reality mean very little to the kind of people who defend the misdeeds and missteps of Trump.

While I don't disagree with you at all about the idiotic and racist attacks on President Obama and his family I think this specific rumour has more to do with defending the current President as in "yeah well why is everyone mad as Trump for doing exactly what Obama did huh huh".

While I don't disagree with you at all about the idiotic and racist attacks on President Obama and his family I think this specific rumour has more to do with defending the current President [...]

Yet, while I don't disagree that is one of the reasons for its insidious persistence, the fact that it started well before Trump won the electoral college (see date on link) leads me to believe that's not the reason for the rumour.

Yet, while I don't disagree that is one of the reasons for its insidious persistence, the fact that it started well before Trump won the electoral college (see date on link) leads me to believe that's not the reason for the rumour.

I was referencing the nonsense about Obama's teenage daughters being paid staff. Did those kinds of silly rumours surface before Trump's offspring scored White House gigs? Otherwise I'm going with Psihala's "but Clinton..."

What's really sad is that the "But Clinton..." defense is still being used, despite the fact that Bill Clinton, whatever your opinion of the guy is, has been out of power since 2000. It's kind of weird how culture as whole seem to have developed a sort of Amnesia regarding the period of 2000-2008, at least regarding who was president. It's a shame, seeing as much of said president's policies are still affecting us to this day. cough: war on terror:cough

I didn't think it could be true. But I couldn't find an article where someone had proven it false. It's been around since Obama was elected but is resurfacing under articles about Trump's daughter and son-in-law and the argument goes along the lines that they all do it, even the Obamas. I wasn't sure if the Mother-in-law was paid but the notion the girls were somehow listed as "employees" and paid seeing how young they were seemed completely unlikely.

Since we're dabbling in positive vs. negative claims and the burden of proof, might as well have the whole talk...

Typically, it's best (or easiest and perfectly reasonable) to just demand proof of the positive rather than bother with proving the negative. The response to the question "can you prove it's not true?" should be "can you explain why I should believe your claim?" You are under no obligation to accept the positive absent sufficient evidence. You are also under no obligation to prove the negative (unless you assert the negative as a "positive claim" with its own burden of proof.) So, yes, it may be possible to prove a negative in some cases, but if you choose your words and raise your objections carefully, it shouldn't be necessary if you just want to explain why you haven't accepted a claim as true and think others should maintain a position similar to yours (ie: do not accept the claim as true).

I didn't really want to go into the whole "prove a megative" or "absence of evidence" thing but this is a case where, if it's true, it should be relatively easy to support the argument with public records. I seems like a huge waste of time to do so for every crazy claim but, then again, these things have to start somewhere.

urbanlegendfanatic, if your name means what it means, why not file a FOIA request and look it up yourself? Maybe there's an interesting story there. Maybe the most interesting urban legend stories haven't been written yet.

As an oh btw... I'm not actually sure what the proper usage of the fish-thwacking emoticon is. I tend to use it as a more forceful version of the wink emoticon (a stronger wink than can be portrayed than through a mere , like if I could maybe tilt the wink emoticon sideways winkwise (that is in the direction of the wink)).

If you wanted to play semantics (as many people raised in our American "debate culture" tend to want to) then maybe a little. If you're interested in truth and intellectual honesty (which is just too damn hard for so many of us) then no.

To expand upon that. The presumed outrage at Obama's daughters and/or mother-in-law being paid is that they are being paid with taxpayer money or that they were being paid by someone else in exchange for undue favors being granted that person. IOW, Obama is obliquely being accused of using his office for personal gain for his family. If they were being paid from the Obama's personal finances, then no such gain exists and therefor, there should be no outrage.

To expand upon that. The presumed outrage at Obama's daughters and/or mother-in-law being paid is that they are being paid with taxpayer money or that they were being paid by someone else in exchange for undue favors being granted that person. IOW, Obama is obliquely being accused of using his office for personal gain for his family. If they were being paid from the Obama's personal finances, then no such gain exists and therefor, there should be no outrage.